[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

Am i reading it wrong or have usada stripped him of his titles in teir books but neither te uci nor the tdf organisers have commented nor reacted . Ie the ones who can actually strip him of the actual titles ?

I can't be bothered to read the pages of posts after last looking this morning (if you want to getter a better grasp of LA then you are better off reading some of the links I and others have posted) but has hora admitted he is wrong yet?
Are the sycophants still blindly defending him?

R4 has just announced he's being stripped of all titles - does this mean UCI have confirmed - can't find anything?

trail rat - he has been stripped, simple. That is what the jurisdiction lawsuit was about. USADA has the authority in the US. It doesn't matter that they didn't award the titles / jerseys, because USADA have removed his elegibility to compete after Aug 1998.

It's all a bit disappointing, the end of an era.

I always enjoyed the LA debates, the endless arguments and stories.

I suppose we can move on to the conspiracy theories though...

apparently the UCI have signed up to the USADA Code, which gives the USADA jurisdiction to withdraw the titles. Awaiting UCI and ASO (tour organisers) statements.

[url= http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431 ]http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431[/url]
Vaughters take. Worth a read, you will certainly glean more about doping than a lot of the naive views expressed in this thread.

Am i reading it wrong or have usada stripped him of his titles in teir books but neither te uci nor the tdf organisers have commented nor reacted . Ie the ones who can actually strip him of the actual titles ?

That's what I'm reading too. Further to this, it would appear that they're stripping him of his titles prior to any public testimony by any of the team mates, who have apparantly agreed to testify. I think I must be a bit thick here but aren't they saying we're stripping him of his titles because of a presumption of guilt, simply because he's not contesting the charges?

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that. Odd that they think they have authority to strip a title that they have no control over. Could they then 'decide' Ulrich was doping so he's not worthy... and so on until they get to someone they like?

On the one hand they've got what they wanted, but on the other, I don't think they've come out of it with much credibility.

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that

Because, given the opportunity to refute the evidence of his 10 team mates, Lance has decided that it is all nonsense & he can't be bothered.

About time Zero interested in Drug cheats

There are some fantastically ignorant posts from some of the fanboys on here, perhaps they would like to bury their heads for a bit in here

[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfwUggCmeEs9u9C6vQP_OLuMY74gLwd_FclXjo_YxtW6kkno2u [/img]

In other words, he's not actually been proven guilty - the USADA have decided he is and that is that.

Because, given the opportunity to refute the evidence of his 10 team mates, Lance has decided that it is all nonsense & he can't be bothered.

Has he had disclosure? Does he know what this evidence is? It all seems a bit suggestive to me, or maybe that's the way the media has presented it.

It's almost like a Poker game; USADA are saying with got all this evidence (non of which has been published as far as I can see) so come on Lance, let's play. Whereas on the LA side he knows he only has what he's always maintained (which, let's face it, has continually been questionable). LA has folded without making USADA show their cards and winner takes all.

[He's not been proven guilty. It's more like he's been found guilty. As soon as he decided not to contest the charges, he is presumed guilty and he knew that.
]

Then nor has he taken a lie detector test or the truth drug

Odd that they think they have authority to strip a title that they have no control over.

I think I must be a bit thick here but aren't they saying we're stripping him of his titles because of a presumption of guilt, simply because he's not contesting the charges?

By default; if he doesn't defend the allegations, he's accepted the charges against him

Bit like [or maybe not 🙂 ] a fixed penalty fine for swearing in the street, whether or not you think you're guilty, if you accept the penalty rather than have it heard and defend it, your guilty

So forgive my ignorance, but it was essentially

'have your day in court with the chance to prove your innocence or be brutally crushed by our evidence'

OR

'walk away and accept our punishment'

It's a shame personally to see him come apart like this, as he was winning the tour when I was first getting into watching it with my Dad. Back then I had no idea all this kind of thing went on, heh. To be honest having read David Millar's book and knowing more about bicycle racing, I'm not really surprised anymore.

Although regardless of whether he did it or not, the whole 'guilty until proven innocent' thing seems a bit off.

EDIT: They're talking about it on ITV4 right now...

Has he had disclosure? Does he know what this evidence is? It all seems a bit suggestive to me, or maybe that's the way the media has presented it.

It's almost like a Poker game; USADA are saying with got all this evidence (non of which has been published as far as I can see) so come on Lance, let's play. Whereas on the LA side he knows he only has what he's always maintained (which, let's face it, has continually been questionable). LA has folded without making USADA show their cards and winner takes all.

I believe he has had sight of the evidence against him (to some degree at least) but I do not know that.

Depending on what Bruyneel does the evidence may come out anyway. In fact, even if Bruyneel 'folds' it is quite possible that USADA will release the evidence anyway.

FFS, go read some of the statements.... LA's, USADA, WADA, UCI etc.

Then judge LA's assertion of a witch hunt on the basis of a wider set of perspectives! The spin machine has obviously been effective

He's been desperately trying to suppress the evidence, with the injunction case. Going to arbitration would have exposed the evidence to public scrutiny. Owning up would bring the roof down around him ( Feds, public money etc). This choice was carefully calculated - why wouldnt it have been.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. No one beat Lance on those tours, most of the other high ranked riders were on drugs at some point, if you don't take it as Lance winning, who did?

I'd like to think he wasn't doping, he may well have been, there are only two real facts that I can see.
1. There was a witch hunt, possibly justified, maybe not. I mean you don't take evidence from someone who confesses but dibs a TdF champion in, and then let them ride the TdF. That's either bad form or hypocrisy - not sure which yet.
2. You could give me all the drugs in the world and I couldn't do what those TdF guys do. I will always be impressed by them, junkies or not.

Edit: RKK01 just because it's a witch hunt does mean there isn't a witch, or vice versa.

I dont understand why people bother to defend LA by saying it was just a witch hunt* and then say he was the best anyone as everyone was cheating.
in that case why care either way? He was the best whether he cheated or not. personally care more about whether he cheated than whether he was the best.

* he was the highest profile cyclist ever with a media career and "charity" [ i would call it self promotion tbh] built on his awesomeness and force of will. Of course folk who felt he was a cheat [ and therefore a liar an a fraudster] were "out to get him" as he offended their sense of justice.

So one affair is all over bar the shouting. Time to start again:

It was the original marginal gains philosophy before Sky! We were doing VO2 max tests every week. The guys on the team—a funnier analogy to Sky—the Russians were Olympic and world champions in team pursuit, individual pursuit, points race, the best in the world at track racing and then with these Spanish guys who’d won tons of amateur races in Spain. So it was a natural group of talented young riders who should have—with all these marginal gains—just popped right in and kicked butt.

And what happened?
What happened is we were the worst team in the Spanish peloton by far.

It'll be without me, I really can't be bothered.

Witch hunt? What does that even mean?

It certainly implies an unfair persecution.

I prefer the terms 'investigation', 'inquiry' or 'due process'

Bust every cheat. Sweep out the skeletons. Then draw a line under the doping era and draw an asterisk beside every tainted individual in the results.

Far to many folks are worried about how this will damage cycling. Wake up. Cycling is f*cked already and letting cheats go wont unf*ck it. Did you think Festina was the only bitter pill you'd have to swallow? This one will really stick in your craw.

The way we'll unf*ck it is sending out the message that cheats will be caught and that we will create a level playing field.

No winners in this you say? The winners will be a generation of clean cyclists who don't have to choose between drugs and failure.

[img] [/img]

this 'witch hunt' shit annoys the hell out of me.

lance knows all about witch hunts,

ask bassons and simeoni.

But they're still taking drugs now. Contador, Schleck

No such thing as the drugs era in pro-cycling. As far as I can see some of them have always been on drugs. Certainly from Simpson onwards.

I don't think it's right to go back in time and bust one person - either bust all the old tour winners, or none. Either everyone found doping gets a lifetime ban or none do. Where would you stop in your anti-doping time machine? Some early riders used strychnine, then amphetamines, then EPO, steroids and doubtless a whole host of other stuff that I've never heard of.

Also, it is alleged that Lance's former team mates dobbed him in - I wonder if they are going to give back the extra money they shared in because of his success?

But they're still taking drugs now. Contador, Schleck

The important difference I think is big names like the ones you mention getting caught.

And perhaps the fear of retrospective testing will make current riders think twice?

either bust all the old tour winners, or none

You bust the ones you have viable samples for.

I don't know where that line is but it seems like the logical one to draw.

And still riding, Spin, still riding.

if you have the means to bust em, bust em.

or draw a line in the sand, and stick your head in it, like in football. 😆

And still riding, Spin, still riding.

Fair point

I don't think it's right to go back in time and bust one person - either bust all the old tour winners, or none.

The reason his teammates gave him up is because they were giving sworn testimony before a grand jury-if you're found to have lied you'll end up in jail - so what would you do lie and hope your other 9 teammates all say the same thing or tell the truth? That was also pretty much the offer David millar was given too.

And where have the stories of delayed bans and lighter sentences come from?? Unfortunately usada have made no comment on this all of these stories seem to originate from one of last press releases - so more spin from the guy at the centre of a witch hunt - oh actually that'll be an investigation against 5 people, but la decided it was a witch hunt just against him.

And as for a pointless investigation just to strip him of his titles fraud not as many of the charges relate to 2010 and supply and trafficking of drugs.

Re the evidence la hasn't seen it - doesn't know who the witnesses are (they're not all teammates) - unfortunately la has a nasty habit of getting witnesses to change stories character assassination and witness intimidation (all public knowledge and easily checked)

ask bassons and simeoni.

That should be 'ask who Bassons and Simeoni are?' because if you don't know then you can't objectively comment on the LA doping story. You need to know who landis, andrieau, vaughters, McQuaid, ashenden, David Walsh ,Willy voet, Verbruggen and many others are and their part in doping history.
Or you can believe the LA Pr machine and his cronies.

You can't bust only the people you have viable samples for. To legitimise the process you would have to have samples for everyone. Otherwise it would be pure luck whether or not there was a viable sample for you.

I think pro riding has been on a journey from endemic and prolific doping towards (one day - soon hopefully) no doping at all.

Perhaps we should say "Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List".

That Athletes Passport thing sounds like a good idea too. Protects those who are keen to stay clean.

Perhaps we should say "Right, from (eg) 1 September we will take samples from the top x finishers in all races and test them. Anybody found with [Proscribed List] will be banned for life. We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List

that has already been proven to be of little use if you have friends in the UCI.
vocal commentators who have written about LA doping for years are saying that the reasons he got away with it also have to be investigated, the job is only half done. All the time McQuaid has the hot seat at the UCI the cover up will continue.

I'd like it to be clean. I just doubt it ever was or will be.

Like I said though, still impressive.

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

Interview with usada CEO Travis Tygart. Sounds like a reasonable argument for going after LA and his teammates
[url= http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/ ]http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/[/url]

What do you expect from a sport that idolises numbers & pain & requires little technical skill.

We will also retain your sample for a period of y years, and reserve the right to test retrospectively from time to time for any new substance which may be added to the Proscribed List".

Test people for things that weren't proscribed at the time, but subsequently are? That's not really on.

Do you mean test retrospectively for things that were proscribed then and now there are decent tests for them?

Yes, use better tests in the future and yes, add to the proscribed list eg if a specific performance-enhancing drug was accurately named on the list but subsequently modified slightly it could technically be possible to say that the new compound is allowed because it's not absolutely the same as defined, however, the aim and intention is the same so it should be capable of being proscribed.
By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.
Also, I'm not buying the 'it was in my dinner' defence. That's a crock of shit IMO.

By the way, I am a Lance fan and drugs or no drugs I think he is an outstanding cyclist.

Its true he is because of all the drugs cheats of that era he was the best at drug cheating as he won and he took the longest to get caught.....like you say OUTSTANDING

Out of interest why do you care about current and future testing if you still think the cheats are outstanding?